Kimberlee Hammond v Kiama Leagues Club
[2025] FWC 3046
•10 OCTOBER 2025
| [2025] FWC 3046 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION AND ORDER |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Kimberlee Hammond
v
Kiama Leagues Club
(U2025/12960)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON | SYDNEY, 10 OCTOBER 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.
On 10 August 2025, Ms Kimberlee Hammond made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
For the following reasons I am satisfied that Ms Hammond’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.
In her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Ms Hammond indicated that she commenced employment with Kiama Leagues Club on 28 April 2025 and that her dismissal took effect on 24 July 2025. On the information provided by Ms Hammond, she was employed for 2 months, 3 weeks and 5 days.
Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Ms Hammond the period of employment was less than 6 months.
Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Hammond on 12 August 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.
Section 587 – General Principles
Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.
The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.
Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.
Does Ms Hammond’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?
The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Ms Hammond’s dismissal until it is clear that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.
The information provided by Ms Hammond on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.
Ms Hammond had the opportunity to provide information that could show that she had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Ms Hammond has not provided any information that is consistent with her having done so. v has also had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).
I am satisfied that Ms Hammond’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss her application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a). I make the following order:
A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Kimberlee Hammond on 10 August 2025 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR792565>
0